Crackdown Ordered On Religious Tattoos In Phuket

[yoshiwara]

Thailand is a police state. In a police state there is always a Buffoon knowing what's best for you, the country or the religion. Don't worry it is just another reason to vote for a party that does not use laws to their own advantage.

This must be a Tattoos for Thaksin supporter. Purachai must be very angry that someone has come out with policies nuttier than his eg Ban Spaghetti Straps.

[DavidSL]

Can we expect a crackdown on Thais having Nazi images tattooed...?

Do Thais have 'Nazi images' tattooed?! I've never seen one - unless you mean the 'swastika' - in which case I'd suggest reading up on your history a little.

Does no one agree with this, then? Perhaps I'm the only one, but the minister has a good point. Before I start, let's just say I don't judge people getting tattoos. I have nothing particularly against them, I just think buying a new pair of jeans or a T-shirt might seem like the sensible choice a few years down the line. Having a tattoo across your face shows a serious lack of foresight, in my opinion.

That said, I fully respect people's rights to get their body covered in whatever things they love. However, I'm with the minister on this one - the kinds of morons that cover their bodies in religious iconography without having ANY clue as to what it means do degrade the religion. I don't know how many Thais cover their bodies with tattoos without knowing the meaning, but I'm pretty sure that those we see have them because of a spiritual belief - like the protective scriptures many have on their backs. How many Westerners do you see with Chinese symbols down their arms? It's a stupid fashion, and that's all it is. Some of these people will acknowledge that, saying they 'like the design' (buy a picture then!) - others will pretend it has a deep spiritual meaning and is written in Chinese because it's beautiful. I don't believe a word of it. Tattoos can look great, but they won't look great for long. Yeah, a muscular twenty-something might look good with an armful of tattoos - but wait until he's thirty/forty and walking along with his kid - it just looks like an armful of bad decisions.

Let me clarify my point, before the little-minded ones pipe up. I don't hate tattoos, by any means. But these Westerners who get tattoos of Buddhist images with no interest in Buddhism just make me cringe. The minister is right on this point - these people are doing it because of fashion and an 'in the moment' urge whilst having the holiday of a lifetime. Will it change? Probably not, but I don't think he's wrong in suggesting it should. This is one of those points where Thais and Westerners should be looked upon as different - I really don't believe that Thai people get Buddhist tattoos for the same reasons Westerners do - or, at least, it means something deeper to an actual Buddhist than a tourist.

[normac44]

More Idiocy for Thailand to be Proud of!!!!

CS

I agree 100% must be the quiet season..too much time for thinking

[spectrumisgreen]

Just about every Thai guy in our village has some 'lucky' religious tattoo somewhere on his body. Alot of them done at the local wat. I wonder if the proposed law banning religious images on the body is intended for both farang and Thais?

And this is the crux of the whole thing which WILL NOT be addressed, it being assumed that if a 'Buddhist' gets a Buddhist tattoo it's for religious reasons, but everyone else gets one for a fashion statement.. I'd tend towards saying 'Of course its a fashion statement, and that goes for WHOEVER wants to wear one inked on their body'.. Lets face it, most Thais use Buddhism as no more than superstition, a 'lucky' merit-making wai here and there.. attending the Monks 'blessings' as they think they must etc.. It simply isn't what it was meant to be for most folk (for example, becoming a Monk for a couple of weeks after leaving Uni or before going abroad, simply so that you've done your bit and can now reap the 'rewards'!!).. I have read up on the sentiments and serious issues as identified by highly esteemed monks, saying EXACTLY this, which I found pretty enlightening as I'd started to wander why what I saw didn't match up to my initial understanding of what it was supposed to be about... So, all in all, what actually needs to be addressed here? Attempting to revert Buddhism and Buddhist ways somehow back to what they were meant to be, or making an issue about whether someone/anyone can get a tattoo depicting icons of a religion which no-one seems to be truly holding 'sacred' anyway???

[DavidSL]

And this is the crux of the whole thing which WILL NOT be addressed, it being assumed that if a 'Buddhist' gets a Buddhist tattoo it's for religious reasons, but everyone else gets one for a fashion statement.. I'd tend towards saying 'Of course its a fashion statement, and that goes for WHOEVER wants to wear one inked on their body'.. Lets face it, most Thais use Buddhism as no more than superstition, a 'lucky' merit-making wai here and there.. attending the Monks 'blessings' as they think they must etc.. It simply isn't what it was meant to be for most folk (for example, becoming a Monk for a couple of weeks after leaving Uni or before going abroad, simply so that you've done your bit and can now reap the 'rewards'!!).. I have read up on the sentiments and serious issues as identified by highly esteemed monks, saying EXACTLY this, which I found pretty enlightening as I'd started to wander why what I saw didn't match up to my initial understanding of what it was supposed to be about... So, all in all, what actually needs to be addressed here? Attempting to revert Buddhism and Buddhist ways somehow back to what they were meant to be, or making an issue about whether someone/anyone can get a tattoo depicting icons of a religion which no-one seems to be truly holding 'sacred' anyway???

So you read a book, and now you know how it is?

I'm not trying to start an argument, but your viewpoint is just as limited as mine. All I know are devout Buddhists and those who question it. My girlfriend is a serious Buddhist, but that doesn't mean she attends Temple every week. It means that she believes in her religion, and follows it. Does she follow it to the letter? Can she? No, of course not. The same that most Christians don't follow their religion to the letter. Does that mean she doesn't take it seriously? No.

Point I'm trying to make is that what you are using is a limited viewpoint to paint a whole culture. Of course one would assume that a Buddhist getting a Buddhist tattoo would be for religious reasons - it would be! If a Westerner coming here decides they like the image and wants it painted on their body without having any idea of the symbolism, they should be at least discouraged - it isn't respectful to an entire culture of people. Let's not pretend these people are exercising their freedom of expression or standing up for their rights, they are doing something they see other people do whilst holidaying or living in Thailand. It has nothing at all to do with religion, and that's what the Minister of Culture wants to stop. Does he focus on foreigners? Yes, because they are largely the guilty party. Is he being racist? We'll leave that moronic viewpoint to the more embittered members of this forum.

[spectrumisgreen]

'I don't know how many Thais cover their bodies with tattoos without knowing the meaning, but I'm pretty sure that those we see have them because of a spiritual belief - like the protective scriptures many have on their backs.'

I'm not into tattoos, as you clearly aren't either, and I'd be inclined to agree with you, certainly to an extent if I felt you'd got it right on the above statement.. however I think you need to 'wake up and smell the thorns' on this one.. very few Thais are living with any clear Buddhist 'vision', intent or sentiment.. its basically become convoluted to no more than a superstition for most.. those who really want to live their lives as true Buddhists, rarely seem to need to tattoo it.. (see my other post on here for how deeply I feel about this based on what I've experienced in my 4 plus years in the country!).. those Thais who have such tattoos, ok they might not always have them simply as fashion statements, but how much better is it that they think this or that permanently etched and painted icon will, without any deeper feeling about their 'religion' somehow bring them luck or wealth or whatever - or perhaps, as is apparently often the case, just be seen as some sort of 'proof' of a (new found?) belief? For me its no better than anyone choosing this or that image, religious or not, because they feel it fits with their personality and makes a statement about themselves.. and my own feelings on this are each to their own, in this case...

[canuckamuck]

If you could take a trip to a prison in Thailand, some of you may be surprised to see how many hardcore Thai criminals are covered in Buddhists tattoos. Should we assume that their tattoos represent a serious pursuit of Buddhist philosophy.

[FOODLOVER]

...In 1908, the American Sears catalogue had many ladies' Swastika hatpins and pendants for sale. In Scandinavia, the Swastika is called the Hammer of Thor, which derived from the Vikings. Commercially it found its way to become the registered trademark of world famous Carlsberg lager as early as 1881 and continued to be used up until 1938. The Entrance of the Famous Carlsberg Brewery in Denmark guarded by four 5 meter huge granite Elephants with a swastika carved in the sides are living proof which all that`s left from the Carlsberg's wide use of the Swastika symbol as part of its company logo. Information and Origin of Hindu Symbol Swastika

Like i said before i almost threw a relative out of house because of this tatoo, not knowing that it meant good luck to them.

Edited June 11, 2011 by metisdead
Edited for fair use.

[JungleJim]

Thailand is a police state. In a police state there is always a Buffoon knowing what's best for you, the country or the religion. Don't worry it is just another reason to vote for a party that does not use laws to their own advantage.

...like who exactly. Not sure that the history of politics anywhere, let alone Thailand, has thrown up to many parties that don't abuse the legal system in one way or another.

[JungleJim]

It would be more effective for the Public Health Ministry to close down all the tatoo shops on health grounds as they are high risk places for catching HIV. How can customers be sure they don't re-use the needles to save a few baht?

Have you seen how much tattoos cost here. You'd have to be one mercenary inkster to skimp on something so basic.

Regarding the "crackdown", can't help but think there are slightly more pressing issues to focus on. Another total joke. It's not like Phuket is a hub of traditional Thai values.

Must admit to being quite suspicious as to why so many people that clearly are not living very Buddhist or religious lives, feel the need to get these Tatt's.

My friend Dave has a tattoo on his foot which reads "dave" (in the drunken scrawl of the man himself). As daft as that clearly is, I'd hazard a guess it has more meaning to him now (even 20 years later) than half the trendies who slap a huge Buddha on their bodies. It doesn't make you look deep, in fact it does the complete opposite. To me it's rarely anything more than the commercialisation of Buddhism, which seems a shallow exchange for both artist and customer. Sorry to the small minority of you who don't fall into this category, and for those that do, if you have to be cool at least get a tattoo that has some/any kind of meaning to you. I for one would have a lot more respect for you

[SteeleJoe]

Lets face it, most Thais use Buddhism as no more than superstition, a 'lucky' merit-making wai here and there.. attending the Monks 'blessings' as they think they must etc.. It simply isn't what it was meant to be for most folk (for example, becoming a Monk for a couple of weeks after leaving Uni or before going abroad, simply so that you've done your bit and can now reap the 'rewards'!!).. I have read up on the sentiments and serious issues as identified by highly esteemed monks, saying EXACTLY this..... very few Thais are living with any clear Buddhist 'vision', intent or sentiment.. its basically become convoluted to no more than a superstition for most.. those who really want to live their lives as true Buddhists, rarely seem to need to tattoo it..

I've spent well over 20 years studying (formally and otherwise) virtually every aspect of Thai sosiety and culture and one of the more interesting components of that is that which you address here: there's simply no doubt in my mind that what you poist is objective fact and recognized as such by any honest and informer observer (including the dozens and dozens of Thais -- among them monks and/or serious students of Buddhism -- that I have spoken to on this very subject).

So you read a book, and now you know how it is?

I'm not trying to start an argument, but your viewpoint is just as limited as mine. All I know are devout Buddhists and those who question it. My girlfriend is a serious Buddhist, but that doesn't mean she attends Temple every week. It means that she believes in her religion, and follows it. Does she follow it to the letter? Can she? No, of course not. The same that most Christians don't follow their religion to the letter. Does that mean she doesn't take it seriously? No.

As I've stated, I think he's spot on (as far as he goes and without some necessary context and nuance) and I can assure you I base it on more than just "reading a book".

With all due respect, I have serious doubts that all you know "are devout Buddhists and those who question it". Moreover, I question whether you could possibly know such a thing or are qualified to make such a claim.

Your girlfriend may be a "serious Buddhist" -- and for the moment we'll avoid discussion of how most Thais adhere to a Buddhism that incorporates a whole lot of other things besides Buddhism (some of which is antithetical to what the Buddha taught) -- but on what do you base that claim? What does that mean to you? And how much do you actually know about what would make someone a "serious Buddhist"? Indeed, how much does she? (This is not any sort of slur on your girlfriend nor do I make any assumptions about her, but it's a simple fact -- one that every Thai I've spoken to agrees with -- that many, many Thais know little about Buddhism).

And yes your comparison to the average Christian is quite apt (perhaps especially in the US where by default and out of societal conditions etc most people would claim to be Christian but beyond that have little actual Christianity in their life or how they live it). But I'm afraid that comparison doesn't strengthen your argument at all -- rather the opposite methinks.

EDIT to ADD:

And as implied much earlier in this thread, these tattoos that Thais (and Khmers) often wore/wear have arguably little to do with "religion". They - like a lot of Thai "Buddhism" -- have plenty to do with superstition, belief in shamanic spells/ sorcery and various other traditions...

I don't argue that such things are any less valid beliefs than another -- certainly I don't think Christianity makes any more sense or is more credible - but I simply point out that not only is there a question about how seriously Thais take their religion but also just how much of it is actually "religion".

(I'm trying to avoid the obvious point that ANY religion can be reasonably argued to be nothing more than superstition and various other traditions...)

Edited June 6, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[DavidSL]

I've spent well over 20 years studying (formally and otherwise) virtually every aspect of Thai sosiety and culture

I've seen a few of your posts on this board and you come across as one of the more mature posters around, so please don't think I'm being rude, but with all due respect, I don't believe much of this. If you have formally studied Thai culture, was it for a dissertation or educational merit? I'm often wary of people who make claims like this, as Thailand is full of know-it-all Westerners who come here thinking they'll make more of an impact than they did back home. Westerners love to 'study' other cultures without integrating into them, and think living here a long time means they know something others don't.

This may not be the case, but like I stated, I'm wary of people who make these sort of claims, especially on this forum.

With all due respect, I have serious doubts that all you know "are devout Buddhists and those who question it". Moreover, I question whether you could possibly know such a thing or are qualified to make such a claim.

And I question how you could make the assumption that I don't. I also go so far as to question whether you've actually ever held conversations with Monks and many hundreds of Thai people during your 'studies' of them to ascertain a great knowledge of society in this Country - and I certainly question whether you are qualified to represent a rounded view of Thailand. It's what makes debates on these forums go on and on - none of us can ever be sure of who we're dealing with. That said, we don't need to create any more arguments on these boards. I was careful to state my knowledge is limited - and it is. But those Thais I would call friends (and these are the only Thais I'm including as my list of 'Thais I know') are people who follow Buddhism as a big part of their lives and believe it. You are certainly not one to question them.

Your girlfriend may be a "serious Buddhist" -- and for the moment we'll avoid discussion of how most Thais adhere to a Buddhism that incorporates a whole lot of other things besides Buddhism (some of which is antithetical to what the Buddha taught) -- but on what do you base that claim? What does that mean to you? And how much do you actually know about what would make someone a "serious Buddhist"? Indeed, how much does she? (This is not any sort of slur on your girlfriend nor do I make any assumptions about her, but it's a simple fact -- one that every Thai I've spoken to agrees with -- that many, many Thais know little about Buddhism).

The advantages of Internet forums are you are able to make accusations without any face put to them. I believe that you weren't making any sort of slur against my girlfriend and respect your questioning of her beliefs - but I base my knowledge on what I've seen and my own 'studies' of her life and beliefs through lengthy discussions and inquiries. I feel on this basis I'm more qualified than you to say how much of a Buddhist she is. I can believe that many Thais don't know very much about Buddhism, but I remain sure that my girlfriend is not one of them. Make of that what you will, if you will.

The main point I was trying to get at was this:

...as implied much earlier in this thread, these tattoos that Thais (and Khmers) often wore/wear have arguably little to do with "religion". They - like a lot of Thai "Buddhism" -- have plenty to do with superstition, belief in shamanic spells/ sorcery and various other traditions...

Whether or not they are part of the greater 'Religion' as a whole, or part of a belief stemming from that Religion, how can one argue that a Westerner getting a tattoo for fashion that a Thai gets for a reason they really believe in is not a little disrespectful. It certainly 'cheapens' the idea, and I don't think many of us are qualified to argue that. We can cite racism, claim there are 'better things to be doing' - but I stand firm in my belief that the Minister is doing this for the right reasons. If he was arguing against tattoos of Thai cartoon characters being tattooed on these people, then it would be farcical, but he isn't. Whether we like it or not, whether we have studied Thai culture or not, it doesn't change the fact that Westerners getting these tattoos are 99.99999% getting them for fashion. That's the debate.

EDITED FOR SPELLING ERRORS

Edited June 7, 2011 by DavidSL

[SteeleJoe]

DavidSL:

Get ready. This is off the top of my head and as a result way too long but if you want a response (and you may not but I'm giving you the doubt and assuming you have enough intellectual integrity to afford someone the opportunity to reply and give it consideration).

"I've seen a few of your posts on this board and you come across as one of the more mature posters around, so please don't think I'm being rude, but with all due respect, I don't believe much of this."

Thanks for the compliment (before the insults). You've said it in a calm and reasonable tone but in fact given that you have absolutely no basis to think that I am being untruthful -- and I would argue that my posts would if anything support that I am not -- it is rather rude to suggest I am. But no big deal. At least your words were civil even if your message was less so (and that's rare enough on this forum).

If you have formally studied Thai culture, was it for a dissertation or educational merit?

I have not completed a dissertation (though I was a research assistant -- and I did a LOT of the research -- for someone else's dissertation. Twice). If, by "educational merit" you mean to earn a degree, then the answer is a partial "yes" -- but much of my study was not towards that effort but for both my own pleasure, as well as to help me in my work and living my life in this country.

But why is that even relevant? If one studies something, presumably one gains knowledge. Is that knowledge not inherently valuable and applicable to the field of study regardless if it is attained in the pursuit of a degree? If a person studied various things for years and in various ways, does the knowledge he gained somehow mean less if it is not (or can not be) used to earn a degree?

I'd also point out I used the verb "study" in all the ways that it can be used (and try to distinguish between them by using "formally and otherwise"): "the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject, especially by means of books" and "a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation" or "the pursuit of knowledge, as by reading, observation, or research" or "attentive scrutiny".

In other words, I've taken courses (here and abroad), I've attended lectures, I've read hundreds of books, journal and articles -- but I've also carefully observed and analyzed and I've gathered anecdotal and empirical knowldge both from formal interviews as welll as thousand of conversations.

I doubt very much that I am unique in all or even any of this.

I'm often wary of people who make claims like this, as Thailand is full of know-it-all Westerners who come here thinking they'll make more of an impact than they did back home.

I don't know why you'd be "wary". Such people are no threat. As for me, I may be a "know it all" (don't think so but I'm sure I sound like one sometimes -- or often) but I came here first for 3 things: boxing, Buddhism and beaches. I was 19 years old and had no thought of "making an impact" here (I'd not even given much thought to making one at home -- though, given that I had some wonderful opportunities and some abilities, I assumed I would -- but wound up making choices that precluded that).

I came back (repeatedly) and settled, entirely because of a love for the country and the life I could live here. No thought of "impact". The extent to which I have subsequently tried to make one in my time here has been limited to some modest charitable work that I am proud of -- and in that regard I suppose I may have made more of an impact than I would have in the US. What about that would make you wary or should be regarded as a bad thing? Every single thing I have ever said about Thailand, in regards to what I see as needing to change or being less than desirable, has been said by numerous Thai scholars as well as many, many Thai friends and associates. But I have never in any way, done anything beyond discussing them to try and make those changes to Thai society (not only do I question my ability to do so, or the appropriateness of doing so but also because I'm simply not inclined to -- I'm no missionary or crusader and I'm neither that pushy or altruistic. Or even that arrogant).

Westerners love to 'study' other cultures without integrating into them, and think living here a long time means they know something others don't.

"Westerners" may love to do that (though I have no reason that is exclusively or even primarily a trait they share). And while I jhave known many, many Farangs like that, that could not be a less accurate description of me. Indeed, I'd be the opposite and anyone who claimed otherwise has absolutely no clue.

I learned to speak Thai, studied the culture and lived, worked , socialized with Thais from day one. I've been doing that for nearly 30 years. Overall, Ive had far more relationships with Thais than Farangs.

Does living here a long time mean I know everything? No. Does it mean I know things that others don't? Not necessarily -- if a guy lives here for 20 years but isn't observant or doesn't make any effort to learn, he may not know some things that a guy who has been here for 2 years is observant and has made an effort to learn does know.

But I think it's common sense that a person who lives somewhere a long time is quite likely to know many things that someone has not doesn't know. Especially if he has, like me, made a major effort to learn as much as he can, for a very long time.

I don't claim to know more than anyone else as I simply don't know what others know. I haven't the slightest doubt there are many people -- some of them on TVF -- who know far more than me on some or all of the relevant topics.

And I question how you could make the assumption that I don't.

I don't make such an assumption. But, as i said, i have my doubts. And I have them because of the statements you made.

I also go so far as to question whether you've actually ever held conversations with Monks and many hundreds of Thai people during your 'studies' of them to ascertain a great knowledge of society in this Country - and I certainly question whether you are qualified to represent a rounded view of Thailand.

Why?

Well, I can't do anything about you thinking me a liar or calling me one, can I? (And as for the rounded bit -- I've not only studied but been a part of nearly all socio-economic levels of Thai society -- form slums to mansions, as it were (and by that I mean lived in the former and socialized in the latter) -- and have had very deep relationships with the people of those groups. But you have the luxury of dismissing that all with unfounded accusations of falsehood.).

But those Thais I would call friends (and these are the only Thais I'm including as my list of 'Thais I know') are people who follow Buddhism as a big part of their lives and believe it. You are certainly not one to question them.

Oh, but clearly I am -- because I already have. And what I also question -- and you did not reply to -- is on what do you base this claim (of their following Buddhism being a big part of their lives and believing it)? Now you may claim that I have no basis to question their beliefs and I can only say that I base on broad knowledge and experience. But you think that is probably a lie -- so that goes nowhere.

The advantages of Internet forums are you are able to make accusations without any face put to them. I believe that you weren't making any sort of slur against my girlfriend and respect your questioning of her beliefs - but I base my knowledge on what I've seen and my own 'studies' of her life and beliefs through lengthy discussions and inquiries. I feel on this basis I'm more qualified than you to say how much of a Buddhist she is. I can believe that many Thais don't know very much about Buddhism, but I remain sure that my girlfriend is not one of them. Make of that what you will, if you will.

I've made no accusations.

I'm genuinely glad you believe I wasn't making any sort of slur against your girlfriend. I have no reason to believe anything other than she is a fine person -- especially as my general opinion of Thai women is very high and you seem like a decent person yourself.

It's important to realize that even IF she doesn't know much about Buddhism and her adherence to it is very superficial, that does not make her in any way a bad person to my mind. Indeed, that would make her like most Thais.

The main point I was trying to get at was this:

Whether or not they are part of the greater 'Religion' as a whole, or part of a belief stemming from that Religion, how can one argue that a Westerner getting a tattoo for fashion that a Thai gets for a reason they really believe in is not a little disrespectful.

I don't argue that and I never have. Feel free to point out where I've even implied it.

Whether we like it or not, whether we have studied Thai culture or not, it doesn't change the fact that Westerners getting these tattoos are 99.99999% getting them for fashion. That's the debate.

It's not apparent to me that you get to decide what is discussed and what isn't. if someone makes a post, I believe I have a right to respond to it. Unless you feel that your post didn't belong on this thread (personally I disagree) and therefore my responding to it was wrong...which would be pretty ridiculous.

I'm rushing and should probably proof-read and consider this more carefully -- but someone's waiting to be tucked in so for better or worse...ADD REPLY

EDIT for FORMAT

Edited June 7, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[DavidSL]

Firstly, thanks for the honest and attentive reply. It's not often on here you can converse with someone without (too many) insults being thrown around. I think we've had our fair share of little pops at each other, but no harm was meant by any of it. You've answered a great deal of my questions politely and calmly, and proven me wrong on many levels. I'm big enough and ugly enough to admit when I was wrong. That said, I won't make apologies for questioning your knowledge, as if I hadn't, perhaps I never would have learnt!

It's rare to have an interesting debate without it degrading into a slanging match, and I'm truly glad we haven't reached that level. None of my questions was set to personally insult you, I was just including you as part of a whole before gauging which kind of person you were. You've shown your true quality, and I'm glad we are able to continue this debate.

I'll address this all again when I have more time - it's getting a little late for my tired eyes - but wanted to post a response to let you know your words hadn't fallen on deaf ears.

EDITED FOR A TIRED TYPIST'S CLUMSY HANDS

Edited June 7, 2011 by DavidSL

[baboon]

"The tattoos were just part of a fashion trend among tourists, who most likely did not believe in the religion and were ignorant of the true significance of the image."

...and the Thai do? ask several of your Thai friends about Buddha. Who he was...What did he do...When was he alive...most of them won't be able to answer.

Too true. Some of the conversations I have had -

"Do you believe in a `God`?"

Errm,not sure.

"What about reincarnation?"

Errm,dunno.

"Heaven and Hell?"

Errm,dunno.

"So what DO you believe?"

Errm,dunno.

And they say the art of conversation is dead.

[KarenBravo]

Want to see a funny reaction?

Tell a Thai that Buddha was an Indian. They won't believe you and think you are trying to insult them.

[SteeleJoe]

Want to see a funny reaction?

Tell a Thai that Buddha was an Indian. They won't believe you and think you are trying to insult them.

Bit of a broad generalization certainly not applicable to many Thais I've known and I know that in many Thai schools (if not all), they teach about the life of Siddartha Guatama.

[KarenBravo]

Want to see a funny reaction?

Tell a Thai that Buddha was an Indian. They won't believe you and think you are trying to insult them.

Bit of a broad generalization certainly not applicable to many Thais I've known and I know that in many Thai schools (if not all), they teach about the life of Siddartha Guatama.

But...but, every Thai knows that Buddha was a Thai.......

[DavidSL]

Want to see a funny reaction?

Tell a Thai that Buddha was an Indian. They won't believe you and think you are trying to insult them.

And that's applicable to exactly how many Thais that you have personally spoken to? Because it's pretty common knowledge that Buddha was from India, and any semi-serious Buddhist would know this.

[KarenBravo]

And that's applicable to exactly how many Thais that you have personally spoken to? Because it's pretty common knowledge that Buddha was from India, and any semi-serious Buddhist would know this.

Exactly!

Which kind of indicates how many "semi-serious" Buddhists in Thailand there truly are.

[SteeleJoe]

Want to see a funny reaction?

Tell a Thai that Buddha was an Indian. They won't believe you and think you are trying to insult them.

Bit of a broad generalization certainly not applicable to many Thais I've known and I know that in many Thai schools (if not all), they teach about the life of Siddartha Guatama.

But...but, every Thai knows that Buddha was a Thai.......

You become less credible with each post, I'm afraid.

[KarenBravo]

I tend to believe that Thais are true Buddhists just as much as the British are true Christians.

In other words.......not much.

Thais are superstitious. I have never met a single Thai, of whatever social group that doesn't believe in ghosts.

They worship luck. They go to temples to gain good luck and get rid of bad luck. All of them.

Hardly Buddhist behavior. In fact I would go so far as to say that as an atheist, I probably know more about Buddhism than most Thais; and I'm not trying to brag here.

I would also say that as an atheist, I probably act more like a Buddhist than most Thais.

[SteeleJoe]

I tend to believe that Thais are true Buddhists just as much as the British are true Christians.

In other words.......not much.

Thais are superstitious. I have never met a single Thai, of whatever social group that doesn't believe in ghosts.

They worship luck. They go to temples to gain good luck and get rid of bad luck. All of them.

Hardly Buddhist behavior. In fact I would go so far as to say that as an atheist, I probably know more about Buddhism than most Thais; and I'm not trying to brag here.

I would also say that as an atheist, I probably act more like a Buddhist than most Thais.

You've found much firmer ground now -- and my posts on this thread largely (though not entirely and I would submit, perhaps less judgmentally) support your position. Except your absolutism and massive generalizations don't serve your argument at all: I have met Thais who don't believe in ghosts. The minority but quite a few nonetheless. And no, not every single Thai goes to temples to gain good luck and get rid of bad luck. That's a ridiculous overstatement.

Your previous posts are even less tenable.

[KarenBravo]

I'm not trying to argue. I'm giving you an opinion.

What you think of that opinion doesn't really matter (whoops.......there I go acting all Buddhist again.....even though I'm an atheist)

[LivinginKata]

2 off topic posts removed. Let's stay on topic please.

Mmmm ... make that 3 posts removed.

[DavidSL]

Looks like this topic has run its course, but it was an interesting discussion until it turned into a d**k measuring contest ('I know so much about Thailand', 'I know more about Buddhism than any of you' 'Your thread is quite insubstantial in providing evidence' etc, etc).

I'm still in agreement with the Minister over this one, and whilst this thread has derailed into a pathetic argument over who knows more about Buddhism, I don't think any of us really have much say on the subject at hand when it comes down to it. We are guests in this Country. If foreigners were doing similar things in your own Country, whose side would you be on?

[SteeleJoe]

Looks like this topic has run its course, but it was an interesting discussion until it turned into a d**k measuring contest ('I know so much about Thailand', 'I know more about Buddhism than any of you' 'Your thread is quite insubstantial in providing evidence' etc, etc).

I'm still in agreement with the Minister over this one, and whilst this thread has derailed into a pathetic argument over who knows more about Buddhism, I don't think any of us really have much say on the subject at hand when it comes down to it. We are guests in this Country. If foreigners were doing similar things in your own Country, whose side would you be on?

Wow. Bit of a change of tone from your previous post to me...that's what you call "address(ing) this all again"?

I didn't see the argument -- pathetic or otherwise -- over who knows more about Buddhism. Where was that (presumably at the end since you claim the thread derailed into that...)? In fact I didn't see 'I know so much about Thailand', 'I know more about Buddhism than any of you', or 'Your thread is quite insubstantial in providing evidence'. Can you show me those quotes? (And if they don't exist, perhaps you can comment on things people actually said instead?)

Or not.

EDIT:

Uh, oh...just noticed some posts were removed. Maybe that's what you were talking about?

Edited June 10, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[DavidSL]

Looks like this topic has run its course, but it was an interesting discussion until it turned into a d**k measuring contest ('I know so much about Thailand', 'I know more about Buddhism than any of you' 'Your thread is quite insubstantial in providing evidence' etc, etc).

I'm still in agreement with the Minister over this one, and whilst this thread has derailed into a pathetic argument over who knows more about Buddhism, I don't think any of us really have much say on the subject at hand when it comes down to it. We are guests in this Country. If foreigners were doing similar things in your own Country, whose side would you be on?

Wow. Bit of a change of tone from your previous post to me...that's what you call "address(ing) this all again"?

I didn't see the argument -- pathetic or otherwise -- over who knows more about Buddhism. Where was that (presumably at the end since you claim the thread derailed into that...)? In fact I didn't see 'I know so much about Thailand', 'I know more about Buddhism than any of you', or 'Your thread is quite insubstantial in providing evidence'. Can you show me those quotes? (And if they don't exist, perhaps you can comment on things people actually said instead?)

Or not.

EDIT:

Uh, oh...just noticed some posts were removed. Maybe that's what you were talking about?

It certainly wasn't an attack against you. I think I took part in some of this derailing, myself. My previous tone towards you still stands, though I was expecting some sort of acknowledgement out of politeness.

I think the thread has gone off topic, and I do see a lot of egos bouncing around, mine and yours included. How this affects my tone towards you before I don't know, because it certainly isn't a deviation in my eyes.

Those quotes are not direct, they are my perceived overview of postings here. The joy of these forums is that I really don't need to do anything you say, just write my own opinions. If you perceive this as some sort of disrespect, I suggest you take leave of the Internet for a while and realise this is perhaps the least personal place you could be. I respect you have a lot of knowledge of Thailand, and I certainly still regard your postings as one of the more mature members of these boards. There is no disrespect towards you personally, just a general feeling towards the attitudes displayed regarding the original subject.

[snamos]

I still want to know if the foreigners in the Philippines get tattoos of Jesus and crucifixes and the virgin mary.

[SteeleJoe]

Looks like this topic has run its course, but it was an interesting discussion until it turned into a d**k measuring contest ('I know so much about Thailand', 'I know more about Buddhism than any of you' 'Your thread is quite insubstantial in providing evidence' etc, etc).

I'm still in agreement with the Minister over this one, and whilst this thread has derailed into a pathetic argument over who knows more about Buddhism, I don't think any of us really have much say on the subject at hand when it comes down to it. We are guests in this Country. If foreigners were doing similar things in your own Country, whose side would you be on?

Wow. Bit of a change of tone from your previous post to me...that's what you call "address(ing) this all again"?

I didn't see the argument -- pathetic or otherwise -- over who knows more about Buddhism. Where was that (presumably at the end since you claim the thread derailed into that...)? In fact I didn't see 'I know so much about Thailand', 'I know more about Buddhism than any of you', or 'Your thread is quite insubstantial in providing evidence'. Can you show me those quotes? (And if they don't exist, perhaps you can comment on things people actually said instead?)

Or not.

EDIT:

Uh, oh...just noticed some posts were removed. Maybe that's what you were talking about?

It certainly wasn't an attack against you. I think I took part in some of this derailing, myself. My previous tone towards you still stands, though I was expecting some sort of acknowledgement out of politeness.

I think the thread has gone off topic, and I do see a lot of egos bouncing around, mine and yours included. How this affects my tone towards you before I don't know, because it certainly isn't a deviation in my eyes.

Those quotes are not direct, they are my perceived overview of postings here. The joy of these forums is that I really don't need to do anything you say, just write my own opinions. If you perceive this as some sort of disrespect, I suggest you take leave of the Internet for a while and realise this is perhaps the least personal place you could be. I respect you have a lot of knowledge of Thailand, and I certainly still regard your postings as one of the more mature members of these boards. There is no disrespect towards you personally, just a general feeling towards the attitudes displayed regarding the original subject.

My internet has been down for a couple hours and just saw this...

Look, first of all I simply forgot about the thread for a while and then didn't get around to replying until I saw there was new post and saw this most recent post from you. I apologize, but in truth I didn't see that there was much to say until you came back and elaborated as you said you would. Moreover, you called into question my honesty -- with no good cause whatsoever and entirely because you decided to make some unfounded assumption about me --and then rather than apologize for it, rationalized doing so. I thought I was being OK about it all by not complaining about it or asking for an apology or retraction. I'm genuinely sorry of you think I was discourteous in not responding but I decided to hold my peace until i saw what else you had to say.

Secondly I probably misunderstood the post in question because I hadn't realized there had been posts prior to it that had been deleted.

As far as egos bouncing around...I don't even really know what you are referring to. My ego is a part of everything I do, certainly -- as is the case with everyone -- but I am not aware that it has unduly affected anything I've written nor do I see that as having happened with you. I stand by everything I wrote 100% (unless I'm forgetting something).

I realize the quotes aren't direct -- which was my point: if you are going to make derisive comments about what people post, then I think it should indeed about what they posted and not made up quotes that aren't actually representative. Maybe those were representative of some posts but as I didn't see anything that looked like that -- not realizing that maybe they were in deleted posts -- I wanted to see if you could support what you posted. I know I didn't post anything that you put in there nor is anything you put there an accurate summary of what I said explicitly or implicitly.

Of course you don't need to do anything I say. Which is why I said "Or not". You - and anyone else -- are free to post anything you like even if it is completely wrong, untruthful and/or unsupportable. Not sure I would call that the beautiful thing about forums but it can't be any other way and I've never imagined it was. I do find some "beauty" if you like in the fact that I -- just like anyone else -- can call anyone on posting things that are fallacious, dishonest and/or unsupportable and challenge them to back up what they are saying -- knowing full well they may not.

Disrespect? Not precisely. But I wondered if you had suddenly decided to characterize my posts in a way that was both negative and untruthful. Not even sure where the motivation comes from but I think a bit presumptuous of you to advise me to take leave and yadda yadda...The funny thing is, it seems to me that you are the one who takes posts a bit too seriously: I challenge your posts -- not criticize you as a person -- and you seem to tend to take it personal and get personal in response.

So -- thanks for the (conditional) compliments (none necessary or perhaps even deserved) and I apologize for being rude if I was. I say again, you seem like a nice guy and a well-meaning one and if I had any issue with what you posted (and indeed I sometimes did), it was never with you.